ORDER
In this сase, an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, we are asked to decide whether actions taken by Fidelity National Financial Inc. (“Fidelity”) were sufficient under Arizona law to renew the prior registration of a judgment against Colin and Hedy Friedman. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Stаtutes § 12-1861 and Arizona Supreme Court Rule 27, we ask the Arizona Supreme Court to address the questions of law described below.
I. Statement of Relevant Facts
A Procedural Background
Fidelity successfully sued Colin and Hedy Friedman and Farid and Anita Meshkatai in 2002 to recover the $8 million that Fidelity paid Defendants to purchase a worthless company that Defendants fraudulently represented to Fidelity was worth $8 million. Judgment was entered in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. That court certified that Fidelity had “good causе” under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 to register this judgment in another federal court even though, because the appeal was pending, the judgment was not yet final. Fidelity registered the judgment in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on November 21, 2002. Fidelity tried, unsuccessfully, to collect on the judgment in Arizona. In attempting to collect this judgment, Fidelity, inter alia, aрplied for and received orders from the court for debtors’ examinations, inspection of the debtors’ safety deposit box, and writs of garnishment.
On Mаy 15, 2003, final judgment was rendered in the original fraud action, because the appeal of the district court’s decision was dismissed.
On July 6, 2006, Fidelity filed another action in the Central District of California. Fidelity alleged the Friedmans and Meshkatais had violated the RICO statute in using family trusts and other devices to avoid paying the 2002 judgment. The U.S. District Court in Arizona took judicial notice of the RICO action on February 6, 2007.
*1123 On April 5, 2007, Fidelity registered the 2003 final judgment in the U.S. District Court in Arizona following the dismissal of thе appeal of the 2002 judgment. Fidelity did not include an affidavit of renewal for the original registration. Noting this lack of an affidavit, the Friedmans filed a motion in January 2008 to quash Fidelity’s renewal of judgment in Arizona, arguing that Fidelity had failed to properly renew. On February 7, 2008, Fidelity filed an additional affidavit of renewal оf the original judgment with the U.S. District Court in Arizona.
The district court denied the Friedmans’ motion to quash, finding that the judgment had been renewed by Fidelity’s Arizona collection efforts and the filing of the RICO action in California. The Fried-mans appealed, presenting us with the question of whether, under Arizona law, Fidelity’s actions were suffiсient to renew the judgment.
B. Legal Analysis
Relevant Statutes
The process for registering the judgment of one federal district court in another federal district court is outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1963. The federal court applies state law, however, when renewing a judgment that has already been registered in that state. Thus, this renewal case centers аround the construction of three sections of Arizona law, Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 12-1551(B), 12-1611, and 1-215.
The first section of Arizona law at issue, § 12-155KB), states:
An exеcution or other process shall not be issued upon a judgment after the expiration of five years from the date of its entry unless the judgment is renewed by affidavit or ... an action is brought on it within five years from the date of the entry of the judgment or of its renewal.
Section 12-1611 is similar though not precisely the samе. It states, “[a] judgment may be renewed by action thereon at any time within five years after the date of the judgment.” The question in this case turns on the definition of “action” in these provisions.
Based on these two sections, the district court found that Fidelity’s collection activities in Arizona were sufficient to rеnew the judgment. In the alternative, the district court determined that Fidelity’s RICO action, filed in California, would also be sufficient to renew the judgment. The district court did nоt address Arizona Revised Statutes § 1-215, which provides that “[i]n the statutes and laws of this state, unless the context otherwise requires ... ‘Action’ includes any matter or рroceeding in a court, civil or criminal.”
Collection Activities
On a broad reading of “action,” arguably suggested by § 1-215, this term might include collection activities such as filing for writs of garnishment or an order to inspect a safety deposit box, as Fidelity did in this case.
See
Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 1-215(1) (defining action to include
“any
matter or proceeding”) (emphasis added). We are uncertаin, however, whether so broad a reading is appropriate, particularly in light of a recent unpublished case from the Arizona Court of Apрeals,
Jones v. Weston,
OwGof-State Lawsuits and Related Lawsuits
We are also uncеrtain whether, under §§ 12-1551 or 12-1611 read in light of § 1-215, the renewal action must take place in the state of Arizona and the extent to which a lawsuit must be related tо the underlying judgment in order to constitute an action brought on the judgment under Arizona law. Again, a broad reading of “action” under § 1-215 might include out-of-state lawsuits like Fidelity’s RICO action. However, renewing a judgment in Arizona through an action filed in California is potentially problematic with regard to giving parties in Arizona рroper notice of the renewal.
Cf. J.C. Penney v. Lane,
Furthermore, Fidelity’s RICO lawsuit, as a separate lawsuit alleging a different (albeit related) violation, is not an action on the original judgment in the samе way as Fidelity’s Arizona collection activities. The latter are premised on the authority of the original judgment to enforce that judgment, while the RICO action alleged a new violation of the law based on the Fried-mans’ attempts to avoid paying the original judgment. We are thus uncertain as to thе degree of relationship required for an action to renew an underlying judgment and whether Arizona would allow an out-of-state lawsuit to renew a judgment.
II. Questions for Certification
We therefore certify the following two questions to the Arizona Supreme Court, believing it appropriate to allow it the first opportunity to аddress these questions. We note that the Arizona Supreme Court may reformulate these questions.
See Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
(1) Do collection activities (such as filing for a writ of garnishment or applying for orders from the court to inspect a safety deposit box or require a debtor’s exam) taken within Arizona, renew a judgment previously registered in Arizona?
(2) Does the filing of a related lawsuit in a state other than Arizona renew a judgment previously registered in Arizona?
As required by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 27, we also provide the following information regarding counsel for the parties.
On behalf of Fidelity National Financial, Inc.:
Orlando F. Cabanday (SBN 168131)
Janice M. Kroll (SBN 189975)
Thomas H. Case (SBN 116660)
HENNELLY & GROSSFELD LLP
4640 Admiralty Way, Suite 850
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Telephone: (310) 305-2100
On behalf of Colin and Hedy Friedman:
Michael R. Walker (003484)
Mark C. Hudson (020500)
SCHIAN WALKER, P.L.C.
3550 North Central Avenue Suite 1700
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2115
*1125 (602) 277-1501
The Clerk of this court shall transmit a copy of this certification order to counsel for the parties. The Clerk shall also forward, under the Ninth Circuit’s seal, the original and six copies of this certificаtion order to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Submission is DEFERRED pending resolution of the certified questions.
The parties are directed to file simultaneous status reports indicating the status of this action every 90 days.